Richard B. Gray v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Sharon (July 28 2008)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD



RICHARD B. GRAY            v.         BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
							   THE TOWN OF SHARON

Docket No. F288048				   Promulgated:
							   July 28, 2008


	This is an appeal under the formal procedure pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 7 and G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65 from the refusal of the appellee to abate taxes on real estate located in the Town of Sharon owned by and assessed to the appellant under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38, for the fiscal year 2007.
	Commissioner Egan ("Presiding Commissioner") heard the appeal under G.L. c. 58A, § 1A and issued a single-member decision for the appellee.
	These findings of fact and report are made pursuant to a request by the appellant under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.32. 


	Richard B. Gray, pro se, for the appellant. 
	
	Mark Mazur, Assistant Assessor, for the appellee.




FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT


	On January 1, 2007, the appellant, Richard B. Gray ("appellant"), was the assessed owner of a parcel of real estate located at 756 Mountain Street in the Town of Sharon ("subject property").  The subject property consists of 1.63 acres of land and is improved with a single-family dwelling, a barn with a basement, and a shed.  For fiscal year 2007, the Board of Assessors of Sharon ("assessors" or "appellee") valued the subject property at $306,000 and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $14.16 per thousand, in the amount of $4,332.96.  Sharon's Collector of Taxes mailed tax bills for the first half of fiscal year 2007 on or about November 17, 2006 and mailed tax bills for the second half of fiscal year 2007 on or about March 21, 2007.  In accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 57, the appellant paid the tax without incurring interest. 
On December 15, 2006, in accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 59, the appellant timely filed his Application for Abatement with the assessors, who, on February 5, 2007, lowered the assessed value to $303,800 and issued a partial abatement in the amount of $31.46.  On March 6, 2007, in accordance with G.L. c. 58A, §7A, appellant seasonably filed his Petition Under the Informal Procedure with the Appellate Tax Board ("Board").  On the basis of these facts, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the Board had jurisdiction over this appeal.  Based on the testimony and evidence offered at the hearing of this appeal, the Presiding Commissioner made the following findings of fact.
The subject property is situated at 756 Mountain Street.  The dwelling on the land is a ranch-style home built in 1954 with 1,452 square feet of living area.  It contains six rooms, including three bedrooms, as well as one bathroom and a fireplace.  In addition to the dwelling, a barn with a basement and a shed are located on the subject property.
The appellant presented his case through his own testimony and exhibits, including: a map of selected lots; photographs of views from the subject property; the property record card for the subject property; and the property record card for the property located at 790 Mountain Street.  The assessors then presented their case through: the testimony of Mark Mazur, assistant assessor for Sharon; various jurisdictional documents; the valuation report of Mr. Mazur; the property record card for the subject property before abatement; the property record card for and photograph of 774 Mountain Street; and the property record card for and photograph of 776 Mountain Street. 
At the hearing, the appellant raised several arguments to support his claim that the subject property was overvalued by the assessors.  The appellant's first contention was that his land was unfairly assessed in comparison to the abutting lot located at 790 Mountain Street.  The Presiding Commissioner found that 790 Mountain Street, a parcel consisting of 5.5 acres, was significantly larger than the subject parcel, which had only 1.63 acres.  The property at 790 Mountain Street had 80,000 square feet of land assessed at $2.67 per foot. The remainder of the 5.5 acres was not considered buildable due to its wetland and topography, and therefore that portion of the property was assessed at a lower rate.  The subject property had 71,061 square feet and was assessed at $2.37 per foot, a rate which was lower, not higher, than the neighboring property.  Therefore, the Presiding Commissioner found that the assessed value of the neighboring lot did not provide evidence of the subject property's overvaluation. 
Further, the appellant argued that his property had been improperly assessed at a higher value because of the view of a pond in the park across the street from the subject property.  The view was not mentioned by the assessors in either the assessment report ("report") or on the property record card.  The Presiding Commissioner found that the assessors did not take the view into consideration when calculating the assessment. 
The appellant testified that he was unable to further expand the dwelling on the property, but the Presiding Commissioner found that he failed to substantiate this claim with factual evidence.  The appellant also failed to elaborate on his contention that his property should have a lower value because it lacked a rear yard. 
The appellant further testified that the subject property's foundation was archaic and that this fact should result in a lower assessed value for the subject property.  The Presiding Commissioner, however, found that the assessors had taken into account the two-hundred-year-old foundation in valuing the subject property.  While the evidence showed that the basement was built in an unconventional manner and required a sump pump to alleviate leakage, the assessors accounted for this deficiency and addressed it in their report.  The assessors had given the subject property a depreciation code of "F", resulting in a lower building value for the subject property.  In their report, the assessors deducted an additional 5% from the subject property's value due to functional obsolescence to account for the stone foundation and the non-standard sized windows. 
The appellant further argued that wetlands on the northwest corner of the subject property should have resulted in a lower assessed value.  The Presiding Commissioner found that the assessors' report addressed this issue by reducing the value of the subject property by 20% for its overall condition.  This reduction is also noted on the property record card.  The reduction for condition resulted in a $43,800 reduction in the assessed value.  
In his testimony, the appellant asserted that the value of the dwelling included a half bathroom that was not functional and further that there was a discrepancy between the actual use of the barn located on the subject property and the use designated by the assessors.  The Presiding Commissioner, however, found that the assessors' report appropriately describes the home as having only one bathroom and the property record card specifically mentions in the note section that the half bathroom is nonfunctional and not included in the room count.  As for the barn, the appellant argued that it was being valued as more than just a barn.  The Presiding Commissioner found that after partial abatement, the assessors properly classified the barn as "BRN2", a one-story barn with a basement, and depreciated its value by 30%.  Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner found that the barn was valued appropriately. 
The appellant emphasized in his testimony the fact that Mountain Road was not widened or properly taken care of by the Town. The Presiding Commissioner found, however, that appellant failed to explain what, if any, impact the condition of the road had on the fair cash value of the subject property. Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner found that appellant failed to carry his burden on this issue. 
In their case-in-chief, the assessors presented two comparable properties, 774 Mountain Street and 776 Mountain Street.  Both of the comparables, like the subject property, are single-family, ranch-style dwellings and are also much closer in area to the subject property than the appellant's purportedly comparable property of 790 Mountain Street.  The property at 774 Mountain Street contains 1.3 acres and has 1,294 square feet of living area, and was assessed at $384,300 for the fiscal year 2007. The property at 776 Mountain Street is a 1.23-acre lot with 1,104 square feet of living area, and was assessed at $354,400 for fiscal year 2007.  The Presiding Commissioner found that the assessed values of the assessor's comparable properties supported the assessed value of the subject property.  The appellant was unable to produce any recent sales in the area or other comparable properties to prove that the subject property was overvalued.  
For all of the forgoing reasons, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the appellant failed to meet his burden of proving that the assessed value of the subject property for fiscal year 2007 exceeded its fair cash value.  The Presiding Commissioner further found that the assessors' evidence supported the assessment.  Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner decided this appeal for the appellee. 

OPINION
	Assessors are required to assess all real and personal property at its fair cash value as of the first day of January preceding the fiscal year at issue.  G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38.  Fair cash value is defined as the price on which a willing buyer and a willing seller would agree if both were fully informed about the property and were under no compulsion.  Boston Gas Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956).
	The burden of proof is on the taxpayer to prove a right to an abatement of taxes.  Schlaiker v. Assessors of Great Barrington, 365 Mass. 243, 245 (1974).  The assessed value is presumed valid unless the taxpayer meets the burden of proving otherwise.  Id.  The taxpayer may present evidence of the fair cash value of the property or prove an error in the valuation method.  General Electric Co. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591, 600 (1984). 
	Evidence of sales of comparable properties in the area is a strong indicator of the fair cash value of a property.  Foxboro Associates v. Board of Assessors of Foxborough, 385 Mass. 679, 682 (1982).  In the present appeal, the appellant presented no evidence concerning sales of comparable properties in the area, and his comparable assessment property did not contradict the value assigned by the assessors to the subject property's parcel.  Moreover, the comparable assessment property presented by the appellant was not really comparable to the subject property.  The difference in lot size, and appellant's failure to adjust for this and other differences between 790 Mountain Street and the subject property, reduced the probative value of this evidence. Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner found that the appellant failed to meet his burden of proof. 
In contrast, the Presiding Commissioner found the two properties presented by the assessors - located at 774 Mountain Street and 776 Mountain Street - to be comparable and probative with respect to the value of the subject property.  The properties were similar in size and contained similar single-family, ranch-style dwellings.  The assessments of these properties supported the assessed value of the subject property. 
The Presiding Commissioner found that in assessing the subject property, the assessors had already accounted for the deficiencies raised by the appellant.  The assessors gave a 5% reduction for functional obsolescence and a 20% reduction for the overall condition of the property taking into account the wetlands.  These reductions amply adjusted the assessed value to account for these deficiencies.  The Presiding Commissioner also found that the condition of the foundation and basement of the subject property had been accounted for by the assessors with the classification of the property as depreciation code "F", resulting in a lower value for the property.  Therefore, the appellant's contentions about the impact of the foundation and basement on the value of the subject property had already been taken into consideration.  
On this basis, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled that the appellant did not meet his burden of proving that the assessors overvalued the subject property for the fiscal year 2007.  The Presiding Commissioner also found and ruled that the assessors amply supported the assessment.  Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner decided this appeal for the appellee.       

		   				THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD


  By: ___________________________________
  Thomas W. Hammond, Jr., Chairman




A true copy,


Attest: _________________________________
         Clerk of the Board

 On April 2, 2007, within thirty days of service of the Petition Under Informal Procedure, the assessors elected to transfer the proceedings to the formal docket. 

ATB 2008 - 985